CannonBall Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Do you want the lights of New York to go out? If so, why? Very much so! We need a clean slate, the lights of LA would do, maybe even DC. The looters need their life lines CUT, that is why. -Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Bush’s threat is long term, Kerry’s threat starts if he gets elected November second (knock on wood). You would have a point--if Bush was actually better at defending this country than Kerry will be. I think that premise needs to be checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 We are already on Kerry's road, that of socialism. Under Kerry, we might get more socialistic, but the country would not make any fundamental changes. Bush is taking us down a NEW road to theocracy. Not only is this a never-before-seen threat in America, but it is far more dangerous than socialism, in my opinion. It's not new. Reagan injected religion into the works in 1980. He's the one who propped up the so called moral majority, and pushed the abortion issue. This is something Ayn Rand was very concerned with, and was the reason she didn't vote for Reagan. Bush is more focused down that road than Reagan was, but the way was paved by Reagan. Again, note, there are counter forces out there. That principle is not the only one with influence. I don't know why you say religion is far more dangerous than socialism. Under communism men like Stalin did a pretty good job of murdering and enslaving people on a vast scale. That competes well with religion on the badness scale. I don't think things will get that bad, however. There are far too many good ideas out there, especially with the influence of Ayn Rand on the rise. Did anyone note how I mentioned Scott Rolen's favorite book is The Fountainhead? Rolen is an avid reader and a pro baseball player. If the ideas have been injected into the culture that deeply, we're in pretty good shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Bush is taking us down a NEW road to theocracy. ...Yes, IF he "carries it to its logical extreme." That "if" is still there. If A, then B. I don't think A is the case. B is a grave threat. Therefore, we are facing a grave threat. Why do I think there is something wrong with this argument? Under Kerry, we might get more socialistic, but the country would not make any fundamental changes. If Kerry surrenders America's sovereignty to the UN, that WILL be a fundamental change. Not only is this a never-before-seen threat in America, but it is far more dangerous than socialism, in my opinion. Why do you think so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Very much so! We need a clean slate, the lights of LA would do, maybe even DC. The looters need their life lines CUT, that is why. -Nate This is not Atlas Shrugged. No good will come from the lights going out if John Galt isn't ready to make his speech. It is not your place to turn the lights out anyways... you wouldn't be able to turn them back on. For you to 'encourage the lights to go out' is quite immoral. That being said, if we did have it on some authority that there was some equivalent to Galt’s Gulch, and that hundreds of great men were ready to rebuild this country after we destroyed the present system, and it wouldn’t be risking a nuclear attack from terrorists or some communist country... voting for Kerry would be the perfect thing to do. But for now I don’t think there is a Galt’s Gulch because I haven’t been invited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Bush directly promotes theocratic POLICIES and JUDGES; Kerry, whatever he CLAIMS to believe, would not. Note that the president is not the country's intellectual leader. Objectivists, so far as I know, are not against Bush because they think he will convert more of the country to Christianity. We are against him because of his consistently religious agenda which, if carried to its logical extreme, would result in theocracy. But it wouldn't be carried to its logical extreme and it isn't even by Bush. That's the difference between a modern American Christian and a third-world medieval mystic like Osama Bin Ladin. Kerry, so far as I can tell, has no agenda other than power lust. (And I find it hard to believe that his recent religious appeals are anything more than attempts to steal some of Bush's votes.) Kerry has a long and well-documented history of having a Marxist, anti-American, anti-Western Civilization agenda which, if carried to its logical extreme, would result in an America like that at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 One should vote for Kerry to speed up the decline of America. The lights will be out sooner in New York if people like Kerry are in office, that is the most valid reason to vote for Kerry. That pretty much says it all. If you want to destroy America as quickly as possible, Kerry is your man. Since I don't, I'm voting for Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 This is what I don't understand. Communism/Socialism ala Kerry is what is portrayed is AS as the main threat to civilization. Not Theocracy. If you people think America is more religeous now than 50 years ago you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Religion Who is closer to Thompson in AS Kerry or Bush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannonBall Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 This is not Atlas Shrugged. No good will come from the lights going out if John Galt isn't ready to make his speech. It is not your place to turn the lights out anyways... you wouldn't be able to turn them back on. For you to 'encourage the lights to go out' is quite immoral. That being said, if we did have it on some authority that there was some equivalent to Galt’s Gulch, and that hundreds of great men were ready to rebuild this country after we destroyed the present system, and it wouldn’t be risking a nuclear attack from terrorists or some communist country... voting for Kerry would be the perfect thing to do. But for now I don’t think there is a Galt’s Gulch because I haven’t been invited. I will be fine if the lights in every major city in the US went out, but the looters will not, that is GOOD and moral. That said, Bush won, so we can add a few more years onto the electrical supply of NYC. -Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 I will be fine if the lights in every major city in the US went out, but the looters will not, that is GOOD and moral. That said, Bush won, so we can add a few more years onto the electrical supply of NYC. Judging by your post in "Objectivists Rides" thread I believe you that you would be quite capable of surviving. If the world ever does go down the tubes get in touch with me, I will also be surviving. Bush did win though, so good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.